In a recent seminar organized by the Kashmir Muslim League, there were emotional outbursts relating to functioning of the United Nations Organisation (UNO). Keeping in view the apathy which UN has shown towards Kashmir dispute for the past fifty years these outbursts are not out of place.
For centuries various thinkers have been aspiring for an International body. The dream could only be realized after the First World War when the League of Nations came into existence in 1919. The league did not facilitate creation of a peaceful world because of its monopolization by some dominant powers. Although there were no VETO Holders in the League yet its Council like UN Security Council had five permanent members. Besides US, UK and France they included Japan and Italy as well. Presence of only four non-permanent members further strengthened the position of the permanent members. Once the League was hegemonised by some powers, it failed to achieve its objectives and the Second World War broke out within few years of its establishment. United States in spite of having a permanent seat in the League Council never participated in its activities. In 1946, the League was formally abolished. UNO had already been created in 1945 to replace it.
The United Nations continued to perpetuate the lacunae which led to breakdown of the League System. Hegemony of some big powers over its decision making was not only maintained but enhanced and instituationalised by granting them right to VETO. The inherent weakness of the UN was compounded by the cold war. Permanent members of the Security Council were divided into different ideological blocks and used the VETO powers to further their own interests and the interests of their allies. Frequent use of VETO powers made the UN Security Council impotent and it failed to implement its own decisions regarding various issues. Kashmir became one of the victims of its ineffectiveness as it was unable to implement United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions regarding Kashmir which had been endorsed by the Security Council. All the attempts to enforce these resolutions were blocked by the VETO of the USSR. The Soviet VETO might have been an impediment in dealing with the political and territorial issues related to Kashmir dispute but one wonders why notice of humanitarian problems and economic emasculation of Kashmiris was not taken. An ordinary Kashmiri is unable to understand why he should be forced to travel via Delhi, Lahore and Rawalpandi covering almost two thousand miles to meet his kith and kin fifty miles away in Muzafarabad, the capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir? Why he should be denied avenues of exploiting one billion strong potential tourist market of China which lies on the eastern border of Kashmir? Why he should be subjected to human rights violations every day and every night? United Nations has altogether been indifferent towards these problems.
After the demise of communism and disintegration of Soviet Union it was hoped that the UN will regain its vitality and play an active role in resolving disputes of the world. Americans painted a rosy picture of the post Cold War scenario by saying that the globe is heading towards a “New World Order”. It was in this context and with a lot of expectations that Kashmiris broke their dormancy and revived their movement for resolution of their long standing dispute in 1990. However, their dream proved to be a nightmare. Instead of invoking the UN attention, their Movement landed them in a trap of continuing terror and tyranny. They soon realized that in order to attract the attention of the US dominated world body they should either have been placed in Europe or should have been having huge oil reserves. If they happened to be located in Europe the Eurocentric world bodies would have rushed to their support as they have done in case of Bosnia and Kosovo. If Kashmir would have been having huge oil reserves capable of meeting the energy needs of the West, Americans would have mobilized armed forces across the world to rescue it as they did in case of Kuwait. Apple and Almonds are not sufficient to attract the attention of the Europeans and Americans as they have plenty of these.
The post cold war UN has no doubt become active but at the same time it has become monopolized and unidirectional. It is a tool in the American hands. UN resolutions are implemented selectively depending upon the interests of the dominant super power. It took few days for UN to pass resolution against Iraq, fix a time table for its withdrawal from Kuwait and secure the withdrawal by force once the demands were not accepted. Resolutions relating to Kashmir have been allowed to become antiques in the archives of the United Nations Secretariat.
“Previously the world faced the problem of an inactive world body. Now, it has very active UN but directed towards securing US interests. Sometimes it even tends to ignore the established norms of International Law for securing these interests. In Lockerbie Case, same was done when UN endorsed the US, UK line in demanding extradition of Libyan Nationals alleged to be involved in sabotaging an aeroplane on the Lokeribe Airport of UK. Despite the fact that the American Supreme Court had itself declared in a case that non-extradition of its nationals by a state is an established rule of customary International law.
Occasional visits of the American Ambassadors to Kashmir are more oriented towards assertion of their own locus-standi in this dispute rather than reflection of genuine concern for the plight of Kashmiris. Occasional visits of the US Ambassadors to Kashmir at the time of Indo-Pak talks is not a coincidence. Americans wanted to make it clear that they have interest in the issue irrespective of any Indo-Pak understanding. Sometimes Kashmir is used as a bargaining chip to seek more and more economic concessions from India or a tool to coerce it to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Had they been sincere to Kashmiris they should have at least pursued for appointment of a special human rights rapporteur along with the UN Observers Mission in Kashmir as they have done at different troubled places of the world.
Nowadays suggestions are being made for increasing the number of VETO holders in the UN Security Council. India, Japan and Germany are the main aspirants in this race. Such a step is unlikely to change the scenario. The aspirants for the VETO power do not have a nice record of dealings in International relations and adherence to UN decisions. India for example refuses to accept UN resolutions on Kashmir. After assuming VETO Power, they will use this to further their own interests as has been done by the present day VETO Holders. The proper suggestion to improve the functioning of the UN is the one that has been made by some judges of the International Court of Justice in the Lokerbie case i.e., to have some sort of review mechanism of its decisions. Besides this, it would not be a wrong idea to develop some sort of writ jurisdiction for the International Court of Justice viz-a-viz UN Security Council so that it could be restrained in case it proceeded beyond its limits and activated if it omitted to fulfill its responsibilities. Even the legality and genuiness of the use of VETO Powers should be subjected to some sort of review mechanism.
In case the United Nations Organisation does not try to reform itself and continues to be hegemonised, it will surely face the same fate as was the destiny of its predecessor i.e. The League of Nations.
For centuries various thinkers have been aspiring for an International body. The dream could only be realized after the First World War when the League of Nations came into existence in 1919. The league did not facilitate creation of a peaceful world because of its monopolization by some dominant powers. Although there were no VETO Holders in the League yet its Council like UN Security Council had five permanent members. Besides US, UK and France they included Japan and Italy as well. Presence of only four non-permanent members further strengthened the position of the permanent members. Once the League was hegemonised by some powers, it failed to achieve its objectives and the Second World War broke out within few years of its establishment. United States in spite of having a permanent seat in the League Council never participated in its activities. In 1946, the League was formally abolished. UNO had already been created in 1945 to replace it.
The United Nations continued to perpetuate the lacunae which led to breakdown of the League System. Hegemony of some big powers over its decision making was not only maintained but enhanced and instituationalised by granting them right to VETO. The inherent weakness of the UN was compounded by the cold war. Permanent members of the Security Council were divided into different ideological blocks and used the VETO powers to further their own interests and the interests of their allies. Frequent use of VETO powers made the UN Security Council impotent and it failed to implement its own decisions regarding various issues. Kashmir became one of the victims of its ineffectiveness as it was unable to implement United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions regarding Kashmir which had been endorsed by the Security Council. All the attempts to enforce these resolutions were blocked by the VETO of the USSR. The Soviet VETO might have been an impediment in dealing with the political and territorial issues related to Kashmir dispute but one wonders why notice of humanitarian problems and economic emasculation of Kashmiris was not taken. An ordinary Kashmiri is unable to understand why he should be forced to travel via Delhi, Lahore and Rawalpandi covering almost two thousand miles to meet his kith and kin fifty miles away in Muzafarabad, the capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir? Why he should be denied avenues of exploiting one billion strong potential tourist market of China which lies on the eastern border of Kashmir? Why he should be subjected to human rights violations every day and every night? United Nations has altogether been indifferent towards these problems.
After the demise of communism and disintegration of Soviet Union it was hoped that the UN will regain its vitality and play an active role in resolving disputes of the world. Americans painted a rosy picture of the post Cold War scenario by saying that the globe is heading towards a “New World Order”. It was in this context and with a lot of expectations that Kashmiris broke their dormancy and revived their movement for resolution of their long standing dispute in 1990. However, their dream proved to be a nightmare. Instead of invoking the UN attention, their Movement landed them in a trap of continuing terror and tyranny. They soon realized that in order to attract the attention of the US dominated world body they should either have been placed in Europe or should have been having huge oil reserves. If they happened to be located in Europe the Eurocentric world bodies would have rushed to their support as they have done in case of Bosnia and Kosovo. If Kashmir would have been having huge oil reserves capable of meeting the energy needs of the West, Americans would have mobilized armed forces across the world to rescue it as they did in case of Kuwait. Apple and Almonds are not sufficient to attract the attention of the Europeans and Americans as they have plenty of these.
The post cold war UN has no doubt become active but at the same time it has become monopolized and unidirectional. It is a tool in the American hands. UN resolutions are implemented selectively depending upon the interests of the dominant super power. It took few days for UN to pass resolution against Iraq, fix a time table for its withdrawal from Kuwait and secure the withdrawal by force once the demands were not accepted. Resolutions relating to Kashmir have been allowed to become antiques in the archives of the United Nations Secretariat.
“Previously the world faced the problem of an inactive world body. Now, it has very active UN but directed towards securing US interests. Sometimes it even tends to ignore the established norms of International Law for securing these interests. In Lockerbie Case, same was done when UN endorsed the US, UK line in demanding extradition of Libyan Nationals alleged to be involved in sabotaging an aeroplane on the Lokeribe Airport of UK. Despite the fact that the American Supreme Court had itself declared in a case that non-extradition of its nationals by a state is an established rule of customary International law.
Occasional visits of the American Ambassadors to Kashmir are more oriented towards assertion of their own locus-standi in this dispute rather than reflection of genuine concern for the plight of Kashmiris. Occasional visits of the US Ambassadors to Kashmir at the time of Indo-Pak talks is not a coincidence. Americans wanted to make it clear that they have interest in the issue irrespective of any Indo-Pak understanding. Sometimes Kashmir is used as a bargaining chip to seek more and more economic concessions from India or a tool to coerce it to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Had they been sincere to Kashmiris they should have at least pursued for appointment of a special human rights rapporteur along with the UN Observers Mission in Kashmir as they have done at different troubled places of the world.
Nowadays suggestions are being made for increasing the number of VETO holders in the UN Security Council. India, Japan and Germany are the main aspirants in this race. Such a step is unlikely to change the scenario. The aspirants for the VETO power do not have a nice record of dealings in International relations and adherence to UN decisions. India for example refuses to accept UN resolutions on Kashmir. After assuming VETO Power, they will use this to further their own interests as has been done by the present day VETO Holders. The proper suggestion to improve the functioning of the UN is the one that has been made by some judges of the International Court of Justice in the Lokerbie case i.e., to have some sort of review mechanism of its decisions. Besides this, it would not be a wrong idea to develop some sort of writ jurisdiction for the International Court of Justice viz-a-viz UN Security Council so that it could be restrained in case it proceeded beyond its limits and activated if it omitted to fulfill its responsibilities. Even the legality and genuiness of the use of VETO Powers should be subjected to some sort of review mechanism.
In case the United Nations Organisation does not try to reform itself and continues to be hegemonised, it will surely face the same fate as was the destiny of its predecessor i.e. The League of Nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment